A Quebec man is attempting to sue Netflix on the grounds that the company failed to adequately notify its customers before its increasing its fees in 2016, as per the province’s Consumer Protection Act.

The suit document was filed by Montreal law firm Kugler Kandestin on behalf of Frederic Seigneur and other Quebecers — approximately 1.45 million subscribers in the province.

Seigneur’s lawyer, Pierre Boivin, spoke with the Canadian Press, explaining that Netflix failed to “send a notice which mentions exclusively the rate that the people were paying and the new rate.”

“They also have to mention that the consumer would have 30 days to cancel the contract if they don’t agree with this increase, and that’s not what Netflix sent,” said Boivin. “They did not respect this provision of the Consumer Protection Act.”

The Canadian Press reported that the Quebec suit would extend to any rate hike by Netflix since August 11th, 2014. Boivin said that it appears there’s only been one, in 2016.

The suit seeks reimbursement of the fees paid since the 2016 hike, which Boivin said translates into approximately $14 million CAD.

Lawyers are also seeking an additional $7.5 million in punitive damages.

Since the suit argues Quebec legislation, other Canadian users are not included. Quebec Netflix subscribers also do not have to do anything to take part in the suit.

The action has yet to receive approval by a judge, but Boivin told the Canadian Press that he hopes to have permission to move forward within the next few months.

Earlier this month, Netflix announced that it would be increasing its fees for new subscribers.

MobileSyrup was able to speak with Alexandre Brosseau-Wery, a partner at Kugler Kandestin working on the class action suit to find out if the suit would address the 2017 price hike.

Brosseau-Wery explained that the 2017 hike is not currently part of the class action suit and that it’s an “issue of notices.”

That is to say, if Netflix appropriately informs its customers of the 2017 increase, then there won’t necessarily be an issue in that specific case.

MobileSyrup also reached out to Netflix, and was told that the company does not comment on ongoing litigation.

Correction: This article originally wrote Brosseau-Wery’s first name as Alexandra, not Alexandre. That error has been corrected in the text.

7.5 millions in punitive charges? I will love to see the explanation on how they get to that figure and I bet those 7.5 will not get to the consumers.

Maybe the raise of $1 a month caused such a traumatical stress than they lost everything because of it. His job, his house, his car, his family and of course and more important COMMON SENSE!

This is the main reason why the world is the way it is, to many absurd allegations.

It’s Me

It’s high because it’s punitive and it’s a class action. Punitive damages are not meant to be compensatory. They are meant to be punitive for violating the law.

Stephen B Morris

But wouldn’t that be over the top for procrastination? I would think that there should already be some sort of precedent set. Netflix can’t be the only company that made that mistake. It just seems high to me. Unless they are taking their financial statements into consideration. But that doesn’t necessarily seem right to me either unless it’s a percentage they use across the board for all contract violations. I suppose I should expect another rate hike next year to pay for this.

It’s Me

Punitive is often a multiple of compensatory. But even as a stand alone amount, I could easily see a court awarding the same amount as was ill-gotten (assuming ill-gotten). So if Netflix collected $1/month across a couple million Quebec users, the amount here isn’t high relative to their gains from the escapade.

*not taking a position one way or the other on the merits of the case itself, just that the punitive amount doesn’t seem out of bounds.

Stephen B Morris

Fair enough.

Samuel Gomez Recuero

So that money goes to whom?

In that case it should be a fine and that fine goes to the goverment not in the pockets of the lawyers

It’s Me

It goes to not Netflix.

Ostensibly it goes to the “victims” that is the class that was subjected to the illegal price change procedure, i.e. those Quebec residents that saw Netflix price increases that sign up for the action. The lawyers will take a big chunk because they aren’t charities.

Stephen B Morris

I don’t normally side with the corporation but this needs to be thrown out of court. I remember when Mobilesyrup reported this specific increase last year. From what I remember it was only to the SD tier and I think they gave two months notice did they not? Let’s say that they dropped the ball and didn’t think to review each province’s regulations separately. That doesn’t mean that you get all of your money back for the year you subscribed plus an additional seven and a half million dollars! At best people should get their dollar per month back and the cost of the class action. That’s it! People are way too greedy!

Samuel Gomez Recuero

And if those lawyers say that spend that much money investigating I want to see invoices and breakdown, cause that firm has to prove it actually incured in those expenses and someone got paid for lets say overtime, so that someone will have to declare that extra income too.And we all know how lawyers calculate their earnings. They are going literaly for almost half the compensation in charges. Another reason why we as humans are doomed, someone somewhere in a dark room said:”Netflix as money, so lets charge this much”

Jon Duke

I agree with this suit. Regardless of amounts requested, companies that want to do business in different provinces, need to know the regulations. Point blank.

Stephen_81

Big reason to NOT do business with Quebec is their oddball laws, I’ve worked for a few organizations that do business with all of Canada except Quebec. Now I happen to work for one based in Quebec.

Canadians want pricing consistent with US pricing, but we have a province like Quebec with a pretty small population when comparing to US markets that has such special case rules, that then get applied nationally to not have to make a product for US a product for Canada and a product for Quebec, Canadians as a whole pay for these unique provincial rules.

Jon Duke

I actually agree with you. To be honest, living with two judicial systems and two tax declarations and two sets of laws is annoying. Let’s say the federal announces a tax break, Quebec quickly announces a tax raise. It’s ridiculous.

But to be fair, that’s just how it is for now and since Netflix choose to do business here, they have to complain even if it’s dumb.

Jon Duke

Also, and I’m not a separatist at all so don’t think that’s why I’m saying this, Quebec wanted to leave because they know they are a country within a country (at least in the head of some) and when they did the referendum, the prime minister of Canada brought a bunch of people to downtown Montreal with big signs asking Quebec to stay and he made them vote and won 51-49. So really, Canada knew Quebec was the problem child but when Quebec wanted to move it, Canada said no. I’m glad it turned out that way tho.

Abomb2015

I remember getting several months notice, and as an existing client, I didn’t pay the increase till 6-12 months later. As a Quebecer, I think this lawsuit is shameful.

Zomby2D

I have pretty much the same recollection as you do from that increase. Warned in advance about the price increase for new customers, didn’t get the increase myself for many months for being an existing client.

That lawsuit is just silly and I hope it gets thrown out of court. I can live without the $36 I could be receiving from it.

Marshall Davidson

It’s patently obvious this guy is looking to make money from this and therefore its frivolous. I remember quite clearly getting email communication advising me of what?? A $2 increase? Big friggin deal but we had months of notice to that effect. Either this guy is lying or the emails landed in his junk folder.Either way this is motivated by pure greed and sheer ignorance.

SycloneRob

It’s not just 2 dollars, it’s almost a ~20% increase. I love how some complain of the big 3 raise their rates by 5 bucks on their internet plans (which is about ~5-8% increase) we are up in arms but Netflix does 2 dollars, blah it’s only 2 bucks. It should be like a 50 to 75 cent raise to reflect a ~5% raise.

bigshynepo

Shameful, if Quebec would just adopt business standards in line with the rest of the country, maybe these kinda of issues wouldn’t happen. Instead, the ‘Country-within-a-country’ called Quebec needs to have a special little way of doing everything different, for no other reason than to be difficult.

AMB_07

… what?

bigshynepo

The whole lawsuit is predicated on the fact that Netflix’s actions contravene the Province of Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuit is doesn’t apply to you if you don’t live in Quebec because Netflix followed the rules for the price hike in the rest of Canada.

AMB_07

I know that part but I still don’t understand your critique of Quebec having its own laws. I mean different provinces different laws that’s a given. Quebec just happens to be stricter for the consummer’s protection. Plus after reading some of the comments here it appears Netflix may have actually informed their customers even in Quebec so this guy may actually not have a case.

bigshynepo

“Quebec just happens to be stricter” – that’s my point, why do they have more stringent rules than everyone else? When you add the language laws to the consumer protection and business laws, it’s all overbearing and anti-business. I can only imagine the added cost and red tape a Saskatchewan business would endure trying to expand into Quebec vs. a Maritime province.

AMB_07

Well different people different needs, I don’t see the problem with reasonably holding corporations accountable for the way they deal with consumers I keep seeing companies expanding to Quebec/Montreal so they don’t seem to have much of a problem with those laws.

Plus you forget that French is the main language in Quebec and a portion of the population is sensitive with the way the language is handled by its government. Thus, for them, French needs to be protected and prioritized. I disagree with your assessment that this practice is anti-business, any kind of business needs to adapt to their chosen market and this is no different.

bigshynepo

You started this dialog with a one word reply barely deserving of a response, but I gave you my answer.You then claimed “you knew that part….” but you wanted to understand my critique, so I gave you my answer.Then you ‘disagree with my assessment’ while extolling the virtues of Quebec’s notoriously pedantic provincial regulations.

I think it’s clear that we share opposing viewpoints and with the weekend ahead of us, I’d say it’s best to call this conversation a wash and enjoy the next few days without DISQUS notifications lighting up.

AMB_07

”You started this dialog with a one word reply barely deserving of a response, but I gave you my answer.”

I didn’t mean that to come off as disrespectful and I’m sorry if you perceived it this way, I could have taken the time to write how I felt about your message rather than a one word comment that’s for sure.

But as you said let’s call it a night. I respectively disagree with your views about Quebec’s consumer laws, have a good night.

fidorulz

I don’t approve of the language laws and for this particular case this person is trying to abuse the law for his personal gain. Quebec as with other provinces has its own laws as well as various other legal,business and other differences vs other provinces which is in its right. Just like drinking age being different in various provinces etc

As someone who lives in Quebec you may consider consumer protection anti business but its in place to protect consumers from abusive cooperate practices

Myself and many others are happy we have this agency in place as it is one of the few government agencies that actually helps the individual

Ill give you some personal examples. Sears is closing lots of stores and people who purchased extended warranties with them are being told they are void since they are under bankruptcy protection

Under the Quebec consumer protection laws this is illegal and they must either refund the warranty or transfer it to another company

Another example is by law items purchased have a reasonably use duration clause. Meaning if you buy something like a TV or a fridge its expected to last a reasonable amount of time. This is so products are not made to simply last the default warranty.

For example a TV I think is 5 years

Its nice to have if you need it

SycloneRob

I would support stuff like this. This is what I want from the crtc for wireless stuff that we all complain about. Look and insurance rates. They are nearly half of Ontario yet supposedly Ontario has lower claim rates (I was told this but have not confirmed).

MoYeung

“Country-within-a-country”… You can call it “one-country, two-system”?

MoYeung

“other Quebecers — approximately 1.45 million subscribers in the province”

So Netflix is really popular among old stock Canadians uh?

Wilfred Borzash

What a goof!! there was emails, to the point it was spam telling about the price hike

EBIGN

Why wait until now to complain? Sometimes this is the reason why we can’t have nice things for people trying to milk it out.

Hello Moto ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

Maybe this year’s Canada only Netflix rate increase is being used to cover potential losses from this litigation? Sounds reasonable to me…..Stupid Quebecois lawyers.